[Kryptid]

It is surprise to see how quarks influences spacetime.  If quarks are capable of developing gravity field, why they fail on some of the planets.

Name a planet that doesn't have gravity.

[pasala]

Name a planet that doesn't have gravity.

It is about variations only.  If each quark is capable of creating a gravity field by itself, it is not the number that matters.  Even few quarks within small area, must be capable of creating a strong gravity field.  It is not the mass alone, there is something influencing, quarks in developing gravity field.  As of now, Moon is the lone planet, humans reached and estimated things therein.  For other planets, it is "inverse square law".

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

And i dont understand SR & GR. I am not sure whether space can be bent, but Einsteinologists say that spacetime can be bent (by the nearness of mass).  The space in spacetime i think refers to the dimensional relativity measured radially to & from mass. The time in spacetime i think refers to the ticking relativity measured both radially &  tangentially.  Relativity means that u have to in some fashion apply Einstein's gamma to the dimension or to the ticking (which Einsteinologists call time) to contract the dimension or to contract the ticking (which they call dilating the time).  Relativity also means that u have to base gamma on the relative velocity (if a dimension) or the relative speed (if a ticking).

I always thought that the term space-time included the time because space was the three dimension, x,y,z, and that time was supposed to be the fourth dimension. My question to 'time' being a dimension or rather the visible light and other energy's that a mass puts out is that if you stood far enough away from an object say another planet for example, the position given by it's time dimension doesn't match it's x,y,z, position in space and if you were going to include other dimensions of giving away location you might as well include smell and sound. If I'm blind and I locate a church by its bells that has nothing to do with it's time dimension.

[Bored chemist]

And i dont understand SR & GR.

It shows.

[A-wal]

And i dont understand SR & GR.

It shows.

How rude! If someone freely admits that they don't understand SR & GR and talks about them on a science board then how could their lack of understanding possibly not show?

Name a planet that doesn't have gravity.

It is about variations only.  If each quark is capable of creating a gravity field by itself, it is not the number that matters.  Even few quarks within small area, must be capable of creating a strong gravity field.  It is not the mass alone, there is something influencing, quarks in developing gravity field.  As of now, Moon is the lone planet, humans reached and estimated things therein.  For other planets, it is "inverse square law".

The strength of gravity is always proportional (inversely) to the square of the distance and directly proportional to the mass of the object.

I always thought that the term space-time included the time because space was the three dimension, x,y,z, and that time was supposed to be the fourth dimension. My question to 'time' being a dimension or rather the visible light and other energy's that a mass puts out is that if you stood far enough away from an object say another planet for example, the position given by it's time dimension doesn't match it's x,y,z, position in space and if you were going to include other dimensions of giving away location you might as well include smell and sound. If I'm blind and I locate a church by its bells that has nothing to do with it's time dimension.

Smell and sound aren't coordinates, time is. Also all four dimensions are interconnected, objects always move through spacetime at the speed of light relative to every other object, the faster an object is moving through space relative to the observer the slower it's moving through time. It's very beautiful.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

the faster an object is moving through space relative to the observer the slower it's moving through time.

So a clock that slows down as it approaches light speed actually moves slower through time? What does that mean? 'moves slower through time'.

[Bored chemist]

How rude!

About as rude as his continued wasting of time + bandwidth posting nonsense

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

About as rude as his continued wasting of time + bandwidth posting nonsense

bored chemist when are you going to accept that Michelson and Morley experiment is flawed. You simply can't have an overall resistance that is the same for all paths to and fro and expect any path to add or subtract momentum to the light wave.
And does your understanding of general relativity effect the OP in anyway that is easily described?

[Bored chemist]

when are you going to accept that Michelson and Morley experiment is flawed.

About the same time that someone gets a Nobel prize for showing that flaw.

I'm not holding my breath.

You simply can't have an overall resistance that is the same for all paths to and fro and expect any path to add or subtract momentum to the light wave.

That sentence does not parse in English.
Would you like to try again?

[Bored chemist]

And does your understanding of general relativity effect the OP in anyway that is easily described?

The OP says "here is a video".
Granted, neither my understanding of GR nor anyone else's doesn't affect it. I never said it would.
On the other hand, the OP doesn't actually tell us much.

[Kryptid]

It is about variations only. 

Which means there aren't any planets that they fail to create gravity on. Although any particle with mass will produce gravity, not just quarks.

  If each quark is capable of creating a gravity field by itself, it is not the number that matters.  Even few quarks within small area, must be capable of creating a strong gravity field.  It is not the mass alone, there is something influencing, quarks in developing gravity field.

Based on what reasoning?

As of now, Moon is the lone planet, humans reached and estimated things therein.  For other planets, it is "inverse square law".

The Moon isn't a planet and the inverse square law does apply to it.

How rude! If someone freely admits that they don't understand SR & GR and talks about them on a science board then how could their lack of understanding possibly not show?

The problem is that he continually goes on and on about how relativity is wrong. It's generally a good idea to actually understand what you are arguing against before you declare it to be wrong.

[A-wal]

the faster an object is moving through space relative to the observer the slower it's moving through time.

]So a clock that slows down as it approaches light speed actually moves slower through time? What does that mean? 'moves slower through time'.

It means that objects that are in relative motion through space are time dilated and an object's relative motion through space plus their motion trough time always equals the speed of light.

The problem is that he continually goes on and on about how relativity is wrong. It's generally a good idea to actually understand what you are arguing against before you declare it to be wrong.

Oh. I don't understand and/or like it so it can't possibly be valid, I see.